Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39670031›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024

Validity between signs and symptoms of sleep bruxism against a validated portable electromyographic device.

Márcio Lima Grossi, Lourenço Oliveira Castillo, Marcos Pascoal Pattussi, Georgia Meneghini Pinto, Ruy Teichert Filho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Tooth Grinding in Older Adults: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Márcio Lima GrossiDDS, MS, PhD, Professor, Post-Graduate Program in Dentistry (Prosthodontics), Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Professor, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Lourenço Oliveira CastilloDDS, MS, PhD. Post-Graduate Program in Dentistry (Prosthodontics), Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Professor, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Marcos Pascoal PattussiAssociate Professor, Post-Graduate Program in Community Health, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos - UNISINOS, São Leopoldo, RS.
Georgia Meneghini PintoDDS, Specialist Orthodontics, School of Health and Life Sciences Course in Dentistry. Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS).
Ruy Teichert FilhoDDS, MS, PhD. Post-Graduate Program in Dentistry (Prosthodontics), Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sleep bruxism is a major research area in dentistry today and needs valid clinical means of diagnosis against valid instrumental methods. Purpose: To assess the validity of the most commonly reported sleep bruxism (SB) signs and symptoms in the literature against a polysomnography (PSG) validated portable electromyographic (EMG) device (BiteStrip®). Material and Methods: Fifty young adults (40 women & 10 men, 18-30 years old) volunteered for the sequential and simultaneous administration of the SB signs and symptoms questionnaire versus the BiteStrip®. The SB signs and symptoms questionnaire was comprised of 19 items divided in 5 areas: a) Area 1: self-awareness of tooth grinding, clenching, and/or tooth sounds/noises, b) Area 2: headaches and/or facial pain, c) Area 3: muscle fatigue and/or hypertrophy, d) Area 4: clicking, crepitation and/or locking in the TMJ, and e) Area 5: tooth sensitivity, tooth wear/breaking, and/or cheek/tongue indentations. A cross-tabulation between the dichotomic test results (positive = 1, negative = 0) between the all five SB areas separately using quartiles (positive test result=75th percentile or higher, negative test result=50th percentile or lower) versus a positive test result of the BiteStrip® (score=1 or higher) was performed. Results: Area 1 presented the highest sensitivity for SB screening (80.0%), but with low specificity (51.4%), diagnosing most SB cases, but with a high number of false positives. All other four areas had low sensitivity (range=37.9% to 58.6%) and screening capacity and are only useful if Area 1 is positive. Conclusions: Commonly reported SB signs and symptoms are not valid diagnostic measurements and can only be used as a screening method for either 'possible' or 'probable' SB diagnosis.

Identifiers

PMID39670031
PMCPMC11632731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.